After a survey of Western philosophy, my hypothesis was confirmed: philosophy can only provide us clarity of our, human-made, knowledge within the confines of our language. It does not give us absolute, objective truths unless we want it to.
This started as something small but morphed into a survey on Western philosophy. It is not a critique but may be helpful when I present an empirical philosophy that challenges most of Western philosophy. In a nutshell, it says that objective truth doesn’t exist.
This essentially was my opportunity to learn about philosophy all over again, in breadth but not in-depth. This is not original to me and is more or less me testing myself after I read, where some portions were copied verbatim from the source I provided below.
Western Philosophy: The Traditional Approach
The word philosophy, from Greek, literally means “the love of wisdom”. I understand why scientists may view philosophy with contempt because they associate it with deductive logic and the weapon of the religious right. But it is a useful way of organizing knowledge and can assist science in understanding its assumptions, theoretical foundations and enlighten us on its moral implications. This is meant to be a concise reference for anyone that is interested in the breadth of philosophy that is not in-depth.
Metaphysics: The Study of Existence and Reality
- relativism, absolutism, objectivism, subjectivism
- pluralism, monism, dualism, reductionism, naturalism, materialism
- atheism, agnosticism, determinism, theism, deism
- idealism, realism, essentialism, nihilism, existentialism
When concerned with the nature of existence, reality, and being, then we are talking about metaphysics. Metaphysics is similar to ontology. Whereas metaphysics is on the nature of reality and what sorts of things are real, ontology concerns itself with what exists and what does it mean to exist. We may hear the word ontology used in science—as an entity’s “ontological status”—which deals with figuring out “how entities are grouped into basic categories and which of these entities exist on the most fundamental level.”
The word objective means that we have agreed-upon standards that allow us to assess the truth of something. If something is subjective, then we lack such criteria. For example, if we say that dogs are the best kind of pets, then it is subjective because the word “best” is not defined. If by “best” we mean any kind of pet that is loyal and affectionate, then we would be closer to objectivity. Otherwise, we would never settle the issue or argument on what the best pet is. Truth then depends on something.
Objectivism (i) is the idea that there is a reality, or realm of objects and facts, which exists wholly independent of the mind . And objective (i) truths or facts remain true always and everywhere independent of the mind . Math is an example of objective truths as 1 + 1 is always and everywhere 2. We will also see it phrased as objective reality which means a reality that exists independent of us perceiving it. Things can be objectively true within a framework but not be universally true, which is objective relativism.
Subjectivism is the antithesis of objectivism. It claims that our perception is our reality and that it is dependent entirely on how we experience it. It is similar to metaphysical relativism and idealism and since it is about how we experience our world, then it is a form of empiricism. Idealism says that the only things that exist are ideas and thoughts, and we can’t be certain that external reality exists. This contrasts with realism which is a form of objectivism that emphasizes a reality that is independent of our perception.
Idealism is a form of Monism (as opposed to Dualism or Pluralism), and stands in direct contrast to other Monist beliefs such as Physicalism and Materialism (which hold that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is physical matter). It is also contrasted with Realism (which holds that things have an absolute existence prior to, and independent of, our knowledge or perceptions).
Relativism is a philosophical doctrine that at the very least says that all things are dependent upon a point of view or framework and that no one point of view or framework should take precedence over another. When we use the word relative, we don’t use it in the strict sense, such as the definition suggests, and is thus called soft relativism. Subjective relativism is when things can be true or false relative to you but not universally true or false which can be put as “what is true for you is not for me.”
Determinism is the philosophical idea that given an initial state of the universe that only one path of events is physically possible, which means every state is predetermined by a prior cause. Indeterminism is the idea that things are not caused or not caused deterministically. When science models phenomena, especially in quantum physics, events are determined in probabilistic terms.
Cause and effect are best understood as a difference-maker; that is, we need to know which variables will make a difference to other variables while holding something constant. Hume points out that we never really observe the cause and effect relations just the fact that some events are reliably followed by others; so we observe the co-occurrence of events.
“Causal relations need not be regarded as mere explanatory relations, let alone as mere practical heuristics. For all we know, causal relations may well exist out there in the world. They may well be what philosophers call “ontic” and not just “epistemic”: features of the world, not just features of our cognition.” 
Causal determinism is a principle in physics that says all states (objects or events) have prior causes that are part of an “unbroken chain-of-events.” The physical level is the classical physics kind of cause and effect and is the level at which causal or physical explanations can be used. The intentional level is where we can reason about mental states being the cause of our actions, but when we reason here properties are in relation to other properties by semantics and logic not by physical causes.
Epistemology: The Study of How and What We Know
- rationalism, empiricism, constructivism, representationalism
- instrumentalism, pragmatism, skepticism, scientism
- positivism, logical positivism, ordinary language philosophy
Epistemology can be summed up as how and what we know. It deals “with the nature (what is knowledge) and scope (what can we know) and asks how we justify our beliefs. Knowledge is explicitly defined as “the awareness and understanding of particular aspects of our reality.” It concerns itself with propositions which are statements of knowledge or truth-value statements. Truth-value propositions have the capacity of either being true or false because they are unambiguous, declarative statements.
So knowledge must meet be understandable and is acquired when reason is applied to reality. What makes knowledge knowledge—”justified true belief“—is that it meets the conditions of being necessary and sufficient. In other words, the statements must be true, believable, and justified. The justification part is a point of disagreement because what justifies something as being true can either be evidential (based on evidence), reliable (a reliable means of attainment), or infallible (“belief necessitates its truth”).
In its extreme form, rationalism is the idea that reasoning alone is the best way to obtain knowledge. As Rene Descartes has said, “I think therefore I am.” Empiricism comes from the Greek word “experience” and says reliable knowledge comes from our senses—that is, how we perceive and experience our world. Empirical refers to the method of empiricism that relies on observation and experiments, which is known as the scientific method. In the real world, reasoning can be either a posterior and a priori.
Instrumentalism is about
Logic: A Process for Getting Good Reasoning
- doctrines: intuitionism, logicism, logical positivism
- categorized: symbolic, formal, informal, and mathematic (logicism, logical positivism)
Logic is what helps us to separate good reasoning from bad reasoning (fallacious). We can categorize logic as formal, informal, mathematical, or symbolic. Formal logic has explicit rules that make it work, which is most often applied to statements or claims within a language. The statements can be true or false and are known as premises when presented as an argument. Premises can be axioms—self-evident truths—or theorems—conclusions that come from strict rules of inference as well as its axioms.
We can structure our arguments as deductive or inductive to help find the validity or probability of truth. The rules of the system—e..g, deductive logic—tell us how the conclusion follows from its premises. In any logical system, logic needs consistency (no contradicting theorems), soundness (no false conclusion from true premises), and completeness (no true statements left to be proved). Traditional formal logic boils down to the study of inferences and focuses on deductive and inductive means to do so.
Formal logic also includes formalism, which says that formal statements have no intrinsic meaning but serve specific purposes. Symbolic logic is “the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference (ii)”. It attempts to solve “intractable” problems that traditional formal logic (e.g., Aristoliean) could not solve. For example, the statements used in traditional logic cannot include more than one determiner, such as “all” or “many”, because they are unsolvable or “intractable”.
First-order logic, or predicate logic, allows for statements to introduce quantifiable variables. Since this is done with our language, then these variables could include the determiners “all” or “many”. Propositional logic is known as zeroth-order logic and contains no determiners, i.e., variables expressing quantity. It is thus more fundamental and makes use of words that connect propositions together or logical operators, e.g., “not”, “or”. In our English grammar, these of course are known as coordinating conjunctions.
Mathematical logic is when formal logic is allowed to influence mathematics and vice versa. Computer science was developed in the 1940s based on Kurt Godel’s incompleteness theorems which addressed the limitations of all of the formal logic systems discussed above. Bertrand Russell and Gottlob Frege were the pioneers in applying formal logic to mathematics, known as logicism, by using set theory, recursion theory, and proof theory. Finally, intuitionism says that math is not a form of objectivism.
According to Intuitionism, the truth of a statement is equivalent to the mathematician being able to intuit the statement, and not necessarily to its provability. It requires the application of intuitionistic logic (or constructivist logic), which preserves justification, rather than truth, for derived propositions. 
Intuitionism essentially says that math does not exist independent of the mind. Math is not analytic—that is, to deny its truth wouldn’t be a contradiction— but instead is a mental activity of humans. Mathematical truths don’t reveal “deep properties of existence but rather they are the application of internally consistent methods to realize more complex mental constructs”.
Any mathematical object is considered to be the product of a construction of a mind, so that if it can be constructed then it exists. Intuitionism is therefore a variety of Mathematical Constructivism in that it asserts that it is necessary to find (or “construct”) a mathematical object to prove that it exists. 
Analytic philosophy was an actual movement and a catch-all phrase for anything within logic that excluded logicism, logical positivism, and ordinary language philosophy. It says the following which is what I have concluded that philosophy can provide us—that is, clarity within the framework of our limited language.
philosophy should apply logical techniques in order to attain conceptual clarity, and that philosophy should be consistent with the success of modern science. For many Analytic Philosophers, language is the principal (perhaps the only) tool, and philosophy consists in clarifying how language can be used. 
Ethics – The Study of How We Should Act
- consequentialism, utilitarianism, egoism, altruism
- hedonism, humanism, individualism, deontology
- moral realism, moral absolutism, moral relativism
i) There are nuances within each of these terms worth discussing. When we speak of absolute and objective, these concepts can be relative to other things just as relativism is. The difference is that once a relationship with another thing is established, it is the “essence” of that thing that matters. On the other hand, when terms like relative and subjective are addressed, then it’s the “representations” of the thing that is used by something else. Relative and subjective are reserved for things that have agency.
ii) Inference comes from “infer” which means “to carry forward”. It is something we do when we think we know something from something we think we know. Once presented as a formal argument, then the statement that we inferred becomes a conclusion.
 Mastin, L. (2009, January). Existence and Consciousness.